The Problem of Omnipotence?

[Tree of Life]

Christians claim that God is omnipotent. Being the Lord of creation and the author of the story of creation his power is without limit. He can do anything that he wants to do. Nothing is too difficult for him.

Some have suggested that omnipotence is an incoherent concept. If this is true then the Christian God cannot exist because the Christian God is incoherent. "The problem of omnipotence" is often expressed with a question like this:

If God is all powerful, is he able to create a rock so big that even he can't lift it?

This question is supposed to show that omnipotence is logically incoherent. If God can create such a rock then his power is limited - he cannot lift the rock he created. But if God can't create such a rock then his power is still limited - he cannot create this hypothetical rock. So the idea of an omnipotent being is logically incoherent - it's not a concept at all. It only seems like a concept.

The purpose of this thread is to say that the above question fails to challenge omnipotence. Here's why it fails:

The question could be reformulated in the following way:

If God is all powerful, is he able to create [a rock that an all powerful being cannot lift]?

Let's look at what the skeptic is asking God to create. I've put in in brackets to make it stand apart. [A rock that an all powerful being cannot lift]. God is being asked to create something logically incoherent. A rock that an all powerful being cannot lift isn't really a concept, it only seems like a concept.

What's really being asked here is this: is God powerful enough to break the laws of logic? Can he create something logically incoherent. There are two ways to answer this question.

We can say "no". God cannot break the laws of logic. He cannot create something logically incoherent. I don't think that this creates a problem for omnipotence.

But maybe you do. Fine. Then we can say "yes". God can break the laws of logic by creating a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift. But if God can break the laws of logic in this instance then he can break the laws of logic in other instances as well.

If he can create a rock that an all powerful being cannot lift then he can break logic one more time by also lifting that rock that an all powerful being cannot lift.

This question has therefore failed to show a logical problem with omnipotence.

 

[Kylie]

Christians claim that God is omnipotent. Being the Lord of creation and the author of the story of creation his power is without limit. He can do anything that he wants to do. Nothing is too difficult for him.

Some have suggested that omnipotence is an incoherent concept. If this is true then the Christian God cannot exist because the Christian God is incoherent. "The problem of omnipotence" is often expressed with a question like this:

If God is all powerful, is he able to create a rock so big that even he can't lift it?

This question is supposed to show that omnipotence is logically incoherent. If God can create such a rock then his power is limited - he cannot lift the rock he created. But if God can't create such a rock then his power is still limited - he cannot create this hypothetical rock. So the idea of an omnipotent being is logically incoherent - it's not a concept at all. It only seems like a concept.

The purpose of this thread is to say that the above question fails to challenge omnipotence. Here's why it fails:

The question could be reformulated in the following way:

If God is all powerful, is he able to create [a rock that an all powerful being cannot lift]?

Let's look at what the skeptic is asking God to create. I've put in in brackets to make it stand apart. [A rock that an all powerful being cannot lift]. God is being asked to create something logically incoherent. A rock that an all powerful being cannot lift isn't really a concept, it only seems like a concept.

What's really being asked here is this: is God powerful enough to break the laws of logic? Can he create something logically incoherent. There are two ways to answer this question.

We can say "no". God cannot break the laws of logic. He cannot create something logically incoherent. I don't think that this creates a problem for omnipotence.

But maybe you do. Fine. Then we can say "yes". God can break the laws of logic by creating a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift. But if God can break the laws of logic in this instance then he can break the laws of logic in other instances as well.

If he can create a rock that an all powerful being cannot lift then he can break logic one more time by also lifting that rock that an all powerful being cannot lift.

This question has therefore failed to show a logical problem with omnipotence.

Seems to me that this proves God can only act in a logically coherent manner. God cannot act in a logically INcoherent manner.

Would you agree?

(After all, if we are to say that God can act in a logically incoherent manner, then we could easily say that God can create such a rock and be both able and unable to lift it at the same time, and so bypass the problem.)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't think omnipotence is too indefensible. I think the real hang up comes from trying to show benevolence.

But to answer your OP, how about a being who was capable of making creatures who can follow orders? Is that too much to ask for or are we supposed to be disobedient?

 

[Colter]

The Urantia Book sums this up better than I can:

Omnipotence and Compossibility​

"The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondoable. Within the time-space frame and from the intellectual reference point of mortal comprehension, even the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good. God cannot do the ungodlike thing. Such a contradiction of philosophic terms is the equivalent of nonentity and implies that nothing is thus created. A personality trait cannot at the same time be Godlike and ungodlike. Compossibility is innate in divine power. And all of this is derived from the fact that omnipotence not only creates things with a nature but also gives origin to the nature of all things and beings.

In the beginning the Father does all, but as the panorama of eternity unfolds in response to the will and mandates of the Infinite, it becomes increasingly apparent that creatures, even men, are to become God’s partners in the realization of finality of destiny. And this is true even in the life in the flesh; when man and God enter into partnership, no limitation can be placed upon the future possibilities of such a partnership. When man realizes that the Universal Father is his partner in eternal progression, when he fuses with the indwelling Father presence, he has, in spirit, broken the fetters of time and has already entered upon the progressions of eternity in the quest for the Universal Father.

Mortal consciousness proceeds from the fact, to the meaning, and then to the value. Creator consciousness proceeds from the thought-value, through the word-meaning, to the fact of action. Always must God act to break the deadlock of the unqualified unity inherent in existential infinity. Always must Deity provide the pattern universe, the perfect personalities, the original truth, beauty, and goodness for which all subdeity creations strive. Always must God first find man that man may later find God. Always must there be a Universal Father before there can ever be universal sonship and consequent universal brotherhood."​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think omnipotence is too indefensible. I think the real hang up comes from trying to show benevolence.

But to answer your OP, how about a being who was capable of making creatures who can follow orders? Is that too much to ask for or are we supposed to be disobedient?

I think God ultimately wants to surround himself with beings that made the decision to do things his way.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think God ultimately wants to surround himself with beings that made the decision to do things his way.

Agreed. Even parents don't want children who obey without free will. There would be no such thing as love, but rather only unwilling obedience.

 

[keith99]

I think God ultimately wants to surround himself with beings that made the decision to do things his way.

I think that falls a bit short of the mark. If God exists he wants what he wants is Sons, not just lap dogs. It isn't just deciding they want to do things his way, it is that they also are going to use their initiative and free will to serve that goal.

Any God and a lot of beings I can imagine that are far less than Gods can create a lap dog followers that never fail in loyalty. True Sons is a much more difficult task.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree that omnipotence isn't a problem in itself. You can just say that God can't break the laws of logic, and that's a fair answer.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I think God ultimately wants to surround himself with beings that made the decision to do things his way.

So I take it Adam and Eve didn't make the cut?

 

[Aldebaran]

So I take it Adam and Eve didn't make the cut?

They did if they repented afterwards. It's the same for the rest of us.

 

[Tree of Life]

Seems to me that this proves God can only act in a logically coherent manner. God cannot act in a logically INcoherent manner.

Would you agree?

(After all, if we are to say that God can act in a logically incoherent manner, then we could easily say that God can create such a rock and be both able and unable to lift it at the same time, and so bypass the problem.)

Yes, this is my assessment.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think that falls a bit short of the mark. If God exists he wants what he wants is Sons, not just lap dogs. It isn't just deciding they want to do things his way, it is that they also are going to use their initiative and free will to serve that goal.

Any God and a lot of beings I can imagine that are far less than Gods can create a lap dog followers that never fail in loyalty. True Sons is a much more difficult task.

I agree with this. This is pretty much what the Bible says about what God wants from humanity. Just curious, as an unbeliever in the Bible how did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Kylie]

The Urantia Book sums this up better than I can:

Omnipotence and Compossibility​

"The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondoable. Within the time-space frame and from the intellectual reference point of mortal comprehension, even the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good. God cannot do the ungodlike thing. Such a contradiction of philosophic terms is the equivalent of nonentity and implies that nothing is thus created. A personality trait cannot at the same time be Godlike and ungodlike. Compossibility is innate in divine power. And all of this is derived from the fact that omnipotence not only creates things with a nature but also gives origin to the nature of all things and beings.

In the beginning the Father does all, but as the panorama of eternity unfolds in response to the will and mandates of the Infinite, it becomes increasingly apparent that creatures, even men, are to become God’s partners in the realization of finality of destiny. And this is true even in the life in the flesh; when man and God enter into partnership, no limitation can be placed upon the future possibilities of such a partnership. When man realizes that the Universal Father is his partner in eternal progression, when he fuses with the indwelling Father presence, he has, in spirit, broken the fetters of time and has already entered upon the progressions of eternity in the quest for the Universal Father.

Mortal consciousness proceeds from the fact, to the meaning, and then to the value. Creator consciousness proceeds from the thought-value, through the word-meaning, to the fact of action. Always must God act to break the deadlock of the unqualified unity inherent in existential infinity. Always must Deity provide the pattern universe, the perfect personalities, the original truth, beauty, and goodness for which all subdeity creations strive. Always must God first find man that man may later find God. Always must there be a Universal Father before there can ever be universal sonship and consequent universal brotherhood."​

So God created something that limits his power?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, this is my assessment.

So what shall we define "Logically coherent" to mean?

I'd suggest that it is something which is logically and rationally explainable.

For example, if I toss a ball in the air, it follows an arc and falls back to Earth, then this is logically coherent. If I chant boogady boogady boo three times and start floating in mid air, then this is logically incoherent.

Would you agree with this definition?

 

[Colter]

So God created something that limits his power?

No, the Infinite and Eternal is already limited to his infinite, eternal nature. He cannot do the ungodlike thing.

 

[Tree of Life]

So what shall we define "Logically coherent" to mean?

I'd suggest that it is something which is logically and rationally explainable.

For example, if I toss a ball in the air, it follows an arc and falls back to Earth, then this is logically coherent. If I chant boogady boogady boo three times and start floating in mid air, then this is logically incoherent.

Would you agree with this definition?

Logic has to do with language. It has nothing to do with reality. Only language can be logically coherent or incoherent. For instance, the concept of a square circle is logically incoherent. "Square circle" doesn't actually describe something in reality. It can't describe something in reality. A square circle cannot logically exist. It's just two words mashed together.

Nothing about chanting boogady boogady boo and floating is logically incoherent. Nothing about tossing a ball into the air and it falling back to earth is logically coherent.

Logic is all about language.

 

[Kylie]

Logic has to do with language. It has nothing to do with reality. Only language can be logically coherent or incoherent. For instance, the concept of a square circle is logically incoherent. "Square circle" doesn't actually describe something in reality. It can't describe something in reality. A square circle cannot logically exist. It's just two words mashed together.

Nothing about chanting boogady boogady boo and floating is logically incoherent. Nothing about tossing a ball into the air and it falling back to earth is logically coherent.

Logic is all about language.

Can you give me an example of something that is logical in one language and yet illogical in another language?

The statement, "My cat is black, therefore penguins can swim" is illogical. While both premises are true (my cat is black and penguins can swim), it is illogical because my cat being black does not cause penguins to swim (that's what the "therefore" means). So, this statement is illogical. I can speak German (albeit rather badly, I've been speaking English primarily since I was about 5), and the statement in German makes as much sense as it does in English - that is, none.

Oh, and the idea of cause and effect is quite logical as well. And cause and effect deals quite heavily in reality. So don't tell me that logic has nothing to do with reality.

So logic is not about language, it is about concepts, and concepts exist independent of language.

Now, will you please address my question?

Do you agree that "logically coherent" can be defined as things which are logically and rationally explainable? Yes or no.

 

[quatona]

Originally Posted by Tree of Life

Logic has to do with language. It has nothing to do with reality. Only language can be logically coherent or incoherent. For instance, the concept of a square circle is logically incoherent. "Square circle" doesn't actually describe something in reality. It can't describe something in reality. A square circle cannot logically exist. It's just two words mashed together.

Nothing about chanting boogady boogady boo and floating is logically incoherent. Nothing about tossing a ball into the air and it falling back to earth is logically coherent.

Logic is all about language.
​

Just for the record: It seems to me that many wordings in your OP suggest otherwise (e.g. acting in a way that "breaks the laws of logic").

Don´t get me wrong: I have always found the "rock too heavy" argument particularly stupid (and this has little to do with "God" but with the underlying definition of "omnipotence") - for the same reason I have always found the assertion "God is beyond logic" particularly stupid (whereas I have always found the first a good response to the latter).

However, all this said, I would like to see Christianity giving a clarifying definition along with the big words it tends to throw out. It would be easier to address its assertions congenially.

 

[quatona]

The statement, "My cat is black, therefore penguins can swim" is illogical.

I don´t think that this is an accurate assertion. In the presented form, the second is not logically following from the first (it´s a non sequitur), which might only mean that some logical steps have been omitted. On another note, you actually need at least two premises to even start a logical syllogism.

While both premises are true (my cat is black and penguins can swim), it is illogical because my cat being black does not cause penguins to swim (that's what the "therefore" means). So, this statement is illogical. I can speak German (albeit rather badly, I've been speaking English primarily since I was about 5), and the statement in German makes as much sense as it does in English - that is, none.

I don´t think that when he wrote "language" he didn´t mean the distinction between different languages. He meant a (as in *any*) representational system.

Oh, and the idea of cause and effect is quite logical as well. And cause and effect deals quite heavily in reality. So don't tell me that logic has nothing to do with reality.

So logic is not about language, it is about concepts, and concepts exist independent of language.

(emphasis added)
I would agree with "concepts exist independent of language" - although I keep having controversial discussions about that question with very smart people.

However, you are jumping to conclusions here, nonetheless. Even if logic is about concepts (not about language), there´s still a long way to show that it is about reality (not about concepts).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So I take it Adam and Eve didn't make the cut?

The 'cut' hasn't been made yet.